I watched it on my phone which is just sad, but your narration and examples were great and I could even see the difference on my little screen. Thank you for the review it's very well done and informative. The IR part was really interesting to see, too, and it seems like IR really puts a lot of demand on the glass.

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

I understand your point but there are lots of people who would rather watch a review than read. Perhaps.

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

First, to RL, I'd like to say I thought your videos, especially the second one on IQ, were well done and I found the side by side comparisons compelling. While watching the video, I kept thinking how glad I am that I decided against buying either the 17-40L or the 16-35 f2.8 II. After reading other reviews and seeing this video, I know it's not a matter of if I will buy this new lens, but when.

As for Souless' question, I too generally like printed info over video for some of the reasons you stated, but I'm in the baby boom generation. We had a discussion about this at a training class at my office last week and we were told that videos are preferred to print by the younger generations. Of course this is a generalization but I find it a better explanation than people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. (One could also say writers love to see their words in print.) Also, perhaps the reviewer feels more comfortable with the medium of video than writing a review. And, finally, I think there is room for both print and video reviews as each have their own strengths. In this case, as I said, the video comparisons were compelling and even more so than just a printed review. It's one thing to say something is sharper, it's another to see it. Hope my explanation helps.

I generally prefer to read/see comparisons like this on a web page, too, primarily because it's faster, but I think RL did a nice job. I'll admit to sighing a bit when I saw it was around 30 minutes long, but I respect RL and wanted to give the video a chance.

As I watched the video, I realized the advantages. By scrolling around as he narrated, his comments were directly related to what was on screen. There was no scrolling back & forth to wonder if the words were about the photo above or below them, and I was able to hear his detailed thoughts while he zoomed in and pointed them out.

RL has given me a new appreciation for these types of videos, but I think that has less to do with the format and more to do with how well he put it together and the fact that he is offering intelligent opinions when he speaks.

I tried blogging but it's more frustrating than vlogging. I think this is a better format for me to use. I understand how tediously long a video can get when doing something technical like comparing lenses but it's hard to make a video brief when doing.

In reality, I compared two lenses on two bodies, at all apertures, plus added IS tests and my opinions in under 30 minutes on video. I'm very satisfied at managing that.

Still, most of the time it's better to view this on a stills webpage but I like the connection that can be made through video.